Growth Planning Rules Must Not Be Undermined

May 7, 1986

AT LONG LAST, a rearguard attack on Florida`s 1985 Growth Management Act has been halted with House Speaker James Harold Thompson`s announcement that he will not allow any substantive changes in the law.

Senate President Harry Johnston made his position clear a week earlier, saying revisions pushed by local governments and some development interests would pass through the Senate ``over my dead body.``

Both legislative leaders have taken the only responsible stand in stopping the so-called ``glitch bill.`` Put together by the House Growth Management subcommittee and stalled in the House Natural Resources Committee, the bill would have corrected some unintended, technical wording in the 1985 law. But the proposal also would have eased important planning restrictions on local governments.

The State Association of County Commissioners and the Florida League of Cities targeted for change provisions of the growth management law requiring comprehensive plans of cities and counties to be consistent with regional and state plans. Many local government officials believe such mandated consistency represents an unwarranted state takeover of local government powers.

The local government associations also lobbied to take away the Department of Community Affairs` power to set minimum standards for local plans, such as what kind of maps must be included in the plan.

Except for truly technical glitches in the Growth Management Act and concerns over how the new comprehensive plans will be funded, local governments have no legitimate complaints.

One need only look at the 12-year history of Florida`s first growth management law to understand that loose requirements on cities and counties did little to prepare them for rapid development. In many urban areas, growth has outstripped the ability of local government to provide basic services.

Life in Broward and Palm Beach counties and other booming Florida areas certainly is not what it was 10 years ago. Many of the negative changes, such as traffic congestion and overcrowded schools and parks, are due largely to inadequate planning by cities and counties.

It is astounding that local government leaders cannot recognize their own deficiencies, but choose to accuse the state of robbing cities and counties of their autonomy because the Legislature has mandated more meticulous planning.

No longer does a local government have a right to plan poorly for the future needs of its citizens. That appears to be where the argument rests for this legislative session. But watch out, there`s always next year and plenty of time to regroup for another rearguard action.